The main Opposition in Parliament the United National Party (UNP) and the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) raising a question on Parliamentary Privileges said that failure to bring DNA leader Sarath Fonseka to Parliament yesterday amounted to a breach of his privileges as a Member of Parliament.
The UNP yesterday (Sept 23) raised a privileges issue in Parliament calling on Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa to look into the failure by the authorities concerned to bring detained DNA member Sarath Fonseka to attend parliamentary sessions. This issue was raised by UNP Parliamentarian Dayasiri Jayasekara. Opposition Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe and DNA parliamentarian Anura Kumara Dissanayake also condemned this failure, saying it was illegal.
However Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa after listening to the members said he would look into the matter.
Former Sri Lanka Army Commander and Chief of Defence Staff who was cashiered by the Second General Court Martial of September 17, is being held under “close arrest” according to the Sri Lanka Army. This is pending the ratification of the three year imprisonment sentence delivered by the Second General Court Martial against Sarath Fonseka regarding irregularities in Army procurements from HiCorp.
He was reportedly not taken to attend Parliamentary sessions yesterday as he was under “close arrest” at the Sri Lanka Navy Headquarters complex. This has been intimated to the Speaker of the House as well as to the Secretary General of Parliament, according to sources.
However Sri Lanka Army sources said though President Mahinda Rajapaksa, as the Commander-in-Chief has so far not ratified the sentence delivered by the Second General Court Martial as he is on an overseas visit, it was the duty of the authorities concerned to keep the accused (Sarath Fonseka) under “close arrest” until the promulgation of the proceedings.
They cited Article 144 of the Subsidiary Legislation Under The Army Act which is as follows:
Confirmation And Promulgation of the Proceedings
144. As soon as the proceedings of a court martial are received by an officer having power to confirm them, he, and in normal circumstances shall, at once the order release of the accused if the sentence awarded by the court martial is lower in the scale of punishments set out in section 133 of the Army Act than dismissal from the army in the case of an officer, or discharge with ignominy in the case of a soldier. If the sentence is, or includes, forfeiture of seniority of rank, or reduction to a lower grade or to the ranks, instructions shall, at the same time, be given that the accused shall not, unless the exigencies of the service demand it, be given any duty whatsoever until after the promulgation of the proceedings; and in such case the accused may, in the interest of the discipline, be placed under open arrest. In all other cases, an accused shall be kept in close arrest until the promulgation of the proceedings.
However, the issue here, according to many is whether this “close arrest” applies to an elected Member of Parliament in
